Letter to the Editor  Courrier des lecteurs Ethical question on food animal practitioner treating mange — A comment Dear editor, It is the professional commitment to safe, competent care of Ontario’s veterinarians that precipitates questions such as that posed in the “Ethical question of the month” in August 2013 edition of the Canadian Veterinary Journal (Can Vet J 2013;54:725) and the response by the column’s ethicist, Dr. Rollin, published in the November 2013 edition, (Can Vet J 2013;54:1016–1018). The College of Veterinarians of Ontario regulates the practice of veterinary medicine in the province in the public interest. Accordingly, veterinarians are licensed, facilities are accredited, standards and policies are developed and maintained, and a complaints and resolution process is made available. All of these activities are aimed at the public interest in access to safe, competent veterinary care at prescribed standards that are informed and defined by peer expectations. There are instances in a professional’s career where true ethical dilemmas arise. Normally these cases involve emergency or end of life issues and the stakes are relatively high. In these cases, acting contrary to the law may be justified where there are no reasonable options that exist within the regulatory framework. In the case presented by Dr. MacLeod, the comments provided by Dr. Rollin are made without an exploration of options that resolve the issue within the regulatory framework that is established in the public interest. For example, Dr. MacLeod may have asked a colleague with an appropriately accredited mobile

facility to visit the farm or he may have taken the dog to the colleague himself for laboratory confirmation of his diagnosis and subsequent treatment. In the absence of considering such viable options, Dr. Rollin then must lead Dr. MacLeod to a position where he counsels for repeated violation of established regulations rather than engaging in regulatory-friendly options that may include lobbying for regulatory exceptions. The creation of a regulatory framework of a self-regulated profession is entrusted to the profession with the expectation that the framework protects the public interest and that all members adhere to this framework as they execute their professional duties. No regulatory framework can persist, nor can the public confidence in a profession be maintained, if individuals are free to engage in providing service in a manner that is contrary to the law where viable legal options exist. While we appreciate Dr. MacLeod’s apparent dilemma in this case, the specifics of the case do not support Dr. Rollin’s advice. Dr. Elizabeth Saul President and Councillor College of Veterinarians of Ontario Ms. Jan Robinson Registrar and CEO College of Veterinarians of Ontario

Constructive and professional comments made in the spirit of intellectual debate are welcomed by the Editor. Writers are expected to be respectful of others and to ensure that letters are considerate and courteous. The Editor reserves the right to remove comments deemed to be inflammatory or disrespectful. CVJ / VOL 55 / MARCH 2014

201